James J. Mays

The appellants appealed an order granting partial summary judgment that dismissed their action against a party host and the municipality that rented the facility.

The appellant was assaulted by another attendee at the party.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the assault was not reasonably foreseeable, as there were no prior signs of aggressive behaviour and the incident was sudden.

The court also found no error in granting partial summary judgment, as the claims against the host and municipality could be readily bifurcated from the remaining claim against the assailant.

The defendant sought leave to bring a motion for further examination for discovery of the plaintiff, Andrea Belanger, and to compel a first examination for discovery of the minor plaintiff, Zara Belanger.

The court found that leave was required under Rule 48.04(1) for both requests because the defendant had consented to trial adjournments.

Leave for Andrea Belanger's further examination was denied as no substantial or unexpected change in circumstances was shown.

However, leave was granted for Zara Belanger's examination due to her increased age, maturity, and the significant damages claimed on her behalf, with conditions on the scope and duration of the examination.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict finding him negligent in a motor vehicle collision.

The collision occurred when a vehicle travelling eastbound was struck from behind, causing it to spin, flip, and cross into the westbound lane where the appellant's vehicle collided with it.

The respondents had settled their claim against the driver of the first vehicle and had settled damages with the appellant, leaving only the issue of negligence for the jury.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: that the jury held him to a standard of perfection, that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the "range of vision" standard, and that the trial judge failed to adequately address improper closing submissions by respondents' counsel that appealed to sympathy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the jury verdict.

The plaintiff, a 16-year-old driver, was injured in a single-vehicle accident after failing to stop at a stop sign at a rural intersection and crashing into a concrete abutment.

The plaintiff had consumed alcohol prior to the crash.

The plaintiff sued the municipality, alleging the intersection was in a state of non-repair because it lacked warning signs for a change in road alignment (an 'offset' intersection).

The court found that the intersection posed a hidden hazard and required a warning sign in addition to the stop sign.

The court apportioned liability 50% to the municipality for failure to warn and 50% to the plaintiff for failing to stop and driving after consuming alcohol.